Was The NIV Corrupted By Homosexual Translators?

by

While the NIV still commands a whopping 40% of Bible sales and is listed in first place among Bible purchased by the CBA, many people are still waging a war against the NIV.

Bible-translation-bestsellers-April-2017
(Source: http://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id=0417)

Even in 2017 DOTB gets upset ranters commenting on blog posts with false information and condemnation for all who read the NIV. The typical rant usually looks something like the following:

The NIV and all the other new (per) versions come from the corrupt Egyptian texts (codex sinaiaticus and Vaticanas and were translated by a couple of satan worshipping reprobates (Westcott and Hort) to say that the KJV is not a good translation makes me angry considering that people died to get that bible translated and printed. The arrogance is breathtaking. William Tyndale and the 40 some scholars who sweated blood for 7 years to get the word of God out to the world under the name King James Bible would be face palming in heaven. The chief editor of the NIV is a sodomite and the chief stylistic editor is a dyke! But carry on reading your easy to read garbage so called bible which tells you to cut off your genitals in Galatians 5:12! (Source: https://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2016/07/21/should-christians-hate-the-reprobates/)

Other similar claims are commonly made about the NIV, many of which are dirived from Gail Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions. Below we are going to address a very common claim about the NIV translation team, namely, that the NIV translation committee was somehow influenced by homosexual translators. Some, like the comment above, go as far as to say that the chief editor of the NIV was a sodomite.

This claim, in it’s many forms, is simply false.

Who Translated And Edited The NIV?

The translation team for the original NIV was adjusted a bit as editing got heavier but the list of the first initial translators and editors is below. Their academic institutions are listed with them as they were when the NIV was first translated. Some of them have since changed institutions.

From 1965 to 1983 the members of the CBT [1] were:

  1. E. Leslie Carlson: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
    1. ** Larry Walker: Mid-America Reformed Seminary
  2. Edmund P. Clowney: Westminster Theological Seminary.
    1. ** Robert Preus: Concordia Theological Seminary
  3. Ralph Earle: Nazarene Theological Seminary
  4. Burton L. Goddard: Gordon Divinity School
  5. R. Laird Harris: Covenant Theological Seminary
  6. Earl S. Kalland: Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary (Denver)
  7. Kenneth S. Kantzer: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
    1. ** Richard Longenecker: McMaster Divinity College
  8. Robert Mounce: Bethel College (St. Paul).
    1. ** Youngve Kindberg: International Bible Society.
      1. ** Donald Wiseman: Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union
  9. Stephen W. Paine: Houghton College
  10. Charles F. Pfeiffer: Central Michigan University
    In 1974 the “long-inactive” Pfeiffer was replaced by Kenneth L. Barker
  11. Charles C. Ryrie: Dallas Theological Seminary.
    1. ** Ronald Youngblood: Wheaton Graduate School, Bethel Seminary
  12. Francis R. Steele: North Africa Mission.
    1. ** William J. Martin: Trinity College
      1. ** Bruce Waltke: Reformed Theological Seminary
  13. John H. Stek: Calvin Theological Seminary
  14. John C. Wenger: Goshen Biblical Seminary
  15. Marten H. Woudstra: Calvin Theological Seminary
  16. * Elmer Smick: Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
  17. * Herbert Wolf: Wheaton College
  18. * Gleason Archer: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
  19. * Roy Hayden: Huntington College

*Added during expanded editing processes from 1976-1978.
** Added due to death and/or absence of original members.

The following names are listed as literary consultants which were used by the NIV committee. The role of such consultants were not usually of translation but of style, English idiom usage, and sentence construction and word-flow. They were not involved in translation or theological formation.

  1. Edward M. Blaiklock: University of Auckland, New Zealand.
  2. Frank E. Gaebelein: Headmaster Emeritus, The Stony Brook School.
  3. Charles E. Hummel: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship.
  4. Elisabeth Elliot Leitch: Writer.
  5. Calvin Linton: The George Washington University.
  6. Kathryn R. Ludwigson: Grand Rapids Baptist Bible College.
  7. Alvin Martin: Fuller Theological Seminary.
  8. Virginia Mollenkott: William Paterson College.
  9. Margaret Nicholson: Author-Editor.
  10. W. T. Purkiser: Kansas City, Missouri.
  11. Walter R. Roehrs: Concordia Theological Seminary.
  12. Samuel J. Schultz: Wheaton College.
  13. John T. Timmerman: Calvin College.
  14. Richard F. Wevers: Calvin College.

 

Who Were The Gay Translators?

Before we address who the alleged homosexuals where that translated the original NIV, let’s first establish that just because a person is a homosexual and they assisted in a Bible translation, that does not mean that the translation is corrupt. Like nearly all modern translations, each translator is assigned a block of text to translate and comment on. Thus, if a gay person was given the task of translating Genesis, in no way would their influence have an affect on whoever translated Leviticus and especially not on New Testament books. Almost universally, Hebrew scholars and Greek scholars stick to their main language. They do not jump back and forth.

That being said, below are the supposed translators that “corrupted” the NIV.

Virginia Ramey Mollenkott: Literary consultant

Virginia was listed in all references as a literary consultant. She has also said herself that all she did was provide services as a stylistic consultant. She did not participate in any translation work. In fact, in one letter she wrote to Michael J. Penfold, she lamented the use of “homosexual” in the Old Testament because it was too anachronistic. A portion of the letter reads as follows:

I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. Dr. Palmer always sent me the batches of translating to review, and I always returned them (with my comments) to him. I have not kept track of which of my suggestions made it into the final version; I am a busy person, and it was a labour love in the scriptures. I do not think anything concerning homosexuality was in any of the batches I reviewed. I do not consider the NIV more gay-friendly than most modern translations, so I do not understand why anybody would want to bash the NIV because a closeted lesbian worked on it. I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept “homosexual” is too anachronistic to be utilized in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me. I no longer have any contact with the NIV-CBT, but I am often amused to remember that I frequently refused my $5 an hour stipend because I heard the project was running out of money. (Virginia Mollenkot)

As a stylistic consultant Virginia would have had virtually no influence on how the Bible was translated. Rather, she advised on which English words, phrases, and idioms, would best communicate the ideas behind the translator’s work. She also engaged in style advice which would been things like sentence structure and readability, specifically for American English speakers.

It’s pretty clear that Virginia was not a major player in the translation, not that that would have made a difference.

Dr. Marten Woudstra: Chair of the Old Testament committee

As some would point out, the real offender of corruption is Dr. Marten Woudstra. To be fair to the critics, Dr. Woudstra did eventually come out as a homosexual. However, he has no publications addressing the matter. He has very few public mentions of the topic and he was not known to have a “partner”. Of the known homosexual Christians in the academic world, from the 70’s, Woudstra was the least vocal on the subject.

However, Woudstra did comment on the nature of the Old Testament and it’s use of sexual terminology.

“There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today.” (Dr. Martin Woudstra)

Many would argue in favor with Woudstra’s reasoning. However, Woudstra’s view does not necessarily give the stamp of approval on modern homosexual practices. He never said that homosexuality isn’t in the Bible or that it’s ok to practice. The better question is: does Woudstra’s perceived position on homosexuality affect the actual translation efforts of the NIV?

Most who knew and worked with the man would say that he was professional and kept his personal life out of his work. Woudstra worked with a slew of great theologians, even F.F. Bruce. Woudstra was revered by the conservative staff at Calvin Seminary, where he wworked.He was also on a committee in the early 70’s to establish a denominational position on the issue of homosexuality. The report that came from committee did not condone homosexuality, even though Woudstra was, himself, a homosexual. This seems to be a trend in his academic works. One would even argue Woudstra had reservations about even his own opinions on the topic.

On the more practical side of things, one must ask what the role of the OT Chairman actually was? As chairman of the OT committee, did Woudstra have influence over the translation of the entire OT? The simple answer is no. He did not get to dictate how the entire OT was translated. He simply oversaw the work.

Additionally, from looking at his previous work it can be suggested that he was not the type of chairperson to force his opinion on others. It should also be noted that he was ONLY involved in the 1973 – 1978 NIV which was only printed for about 6 years, before another revisions was made. Clearly, whatever influence he had was very limited.

Conclusion

If one looks at the passages in the NIV where homosexuality is discussed, it is obvious that the Bible still condemns homosexuality. The question of whether or not Dr Woudtra “corrupted” the NIV can be answered clearly by looking at the OT passages that his team translated. Here are the passages below, including some in the NT.

NIV – Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: this is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22)

‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Because of this, God gave him over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. (Romans 1:26-27)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. (1 Corinthians 6:9) [Homosexual offenders referring to those who have homosexual sex]

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 7)

It is clear that the only passages that seem “soft” on homosexuality is 1 Corinthians, yet that is a NT passage, for which Dr. Woudstra would have no hand in translating. He was the chair of the OT committee not the the NT committee. Furthermore, the passage still condemns homosexuality. It just uses a phrase (homosexual offenders) that seems a bit strange because it’s not a common phrase. They could have used a better phrase, like they did in later revisions. The new NIV now reads.

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men. (1 Corinthians 6:9 NIV 2011)

Any other passage on the matter are also firmed up in later revisions of the NIV. Even if the original was a tad soft (which it wasn’t) the newer revisions correct any confusion.

[Featured image from www.saltradioministries.com]

86 thoughts on “Was The NIV Corrupted By Homosexual Translators?”

  1. Well done admin for keeping your temper in the face of this provocation. I have no skill in Greek, Latin, Aramaic or Hebrew but am a retired Professor of Nutrition. What that means is that I can recognise good scholarship and reliable and honest scholars more often than not.
    Two things. I love God’s Word and secondly can recognise the people with a sweaty, paranoid approach to it. On advice I now use the ESV, having moved from KJV to RSV to NASV to NIV. They all seem reliable but style is important as English has changed in England. What that means is that although I can watch a Shakespeare play and understand it, I teach students in modern idiomatic English and teach them to write in concise and efficient scientific English.
    Regarding the “sweaty, paranoid” bit, we have plenty of that in nutrition science and I’ve written about engaging with it on social media. It was quite unpleasant at times, much of it being “ad hominem” attack (play the man not the ball) in the absence of any decent and honest argument to offer. Anyway, I turned it into an opportunity for informal qualitative research. Happy to forward a copy of you wish.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31162326/

    Reply

  2. None of the Wescot & Hort followups have the HS in them, the KJV certainly does. See Proverbs 25:2 KJVo of course. As for the homosexual question, do you really believe He is going to be in a translation that had any participants who praxis said lifestyle of sin!/?
    Have found all of them, that is modern versions after the KJV contain overall the same doctrinal changes version by version. Just look at one in KJV first, Isaiah 53:8, was Jesus taken BY judgment or FROM judgment as the KJV says, and btw confirms this KJV truth in Acts 8:33 KJV!!! All the rest are leavened counterfeits including the NIV!

    Reply

    • Any translation that claims Jesus had an origin, a beginning, is a fake and not inspired by the HS. Micah 5:2 (NIV) “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

      Reply

      • I would be remiss if I did not point out the fact that you cannot base a translation based on your existing theological framework. That’s not how language works. That being said, Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy listed in Micah 5:2 unless he was a RULER in Israel and sat on the throne of king David. If you read the rest of the prophecy of Micah 5, it’s clear that it’s about a military leader who is a king in Israel. That means this passage was erroneously applied to Jesus.

        Reply

  3. People seem obsessed with homosexual sins as if there are no other sins. This is just conjecture but do you suppose none of the KJV translators ever looked on a woman lustfully, etc? Based on some of the comments the KJV translators must have been sinless.

    Reply

  4. Admin, you wrote, “…Dr. Woudstra did eventually come out as a homosexual.” When did he say/write this? I am not saying he did not, but it seems this would be readily available online. I have never seen it.

    Thanks.

    Reply

  5. “It (the KJV) wasn’t superior. It wasn’t even complete.” –Admin
    “I believe that both the KJV and the NIV are extremely poor translations.” –Chris

    Get lost devils, in JESUS’ name!

    Reply

  6. To begin, please show me a complete version of the Vaticanus or the Sinaticus, without using any of the Majority Text. Then tell me that what we know about Wescott and Hort is not true. Then tell me how many revisions were made to all the other translations and why. Then explain to me why all the other translations have copyrights and why permission to reprint without permission is required. Then explain what Greek or Hebrew lexicon you use to find what the Greek and Hebrew really mean or says, of the 5-10 which is the right one. Then explain why we that speak and read English from our KJV Bibles need to know Greek or Hebrew. Then explain why so many Seminaries are turning out liberal Pastors who then lead their churches into the hands of the LGBTQ+IAS2 cult. Then explain why Mollenkott and Woudstra would even agree to be part of the Editorial staff to write a new translation while they were in rebellion against the Word of God. Then tell me why with so many new translations that are so accurate and available the Church and denominations have given them into the hands of the homosexual groomers. Then tell me how it is that only 20% of Pastors actually believe the Bible is true.
    The King James has stood for 400 years, and it wasn’t until the wickedness of Westcott and Hort and the advent of the new translations that we can now see the end result of their work. Denomination after denomination has fallen into the hands of the homosexuals, leaving true believers to leave their churches to try and find a church or Pastor who will preach the truth. The new translations and those who support them always seem to disparage the KJV and those who hold it to be the true Word of God, why would that be? Bible scholars are more wise today, seminaries are teaching more correct doctrine, the new translation are building a strong and more doctrinally sound body of Christ today. That here in America where there are more of these translations available the Church is alive and vibrant and Christianity is moving our country into a better place. PLEASE!

    Reply

    • The fact that you actually believe modern translations are made up by using the WH or solely someone other narrow line of manuscripts tells me you never studied textual criticism or learned to translate yourself. You should start by reading a book or two on the topic before commenting like you know anything.

      Reply

      • For someone who thinks they are so learned, why didn’t you answer any of my questions? I have copyrights, I know what has to be done to get one, all newer translations “HAVE” to change a certain percentage of the King James Text to get a copyright. It is not about knowing Greek or Hebrew, it’s about changing enough of the text to get a copyright, which all the new translations do.
        It ends up being about money and sales, oh and by the way, how is it if your Greek and Hebrew are so accurate, why the updates, they would have been dead on the first time. So, I’ll ask again “why have so many denominations fallen into the hands of the LGBTQIAS2 radicals” if these new translations are so accurate and they are building up the Body of Christ?
        Because it is about money not accuracy and using corrupted texts to deceive so many into falling prey to our adversary!

        Reply

        • I don’t know which comment you’re referring to but if I ignored something it probably wasn’t important enough to address. For the sake of thoroughness, I will address every point you made just now.

          all newer translations “HAVE” to change a certain percentage of the King James Text to get a copyright
          False. No modern translation uses the KJV as a starting point, so there no point in worrying about changing a certain number of words.

          It is not about knowing Greek or Hebrew, it’s about changing enough of the text to get a copyright, which all the new translations do.
          Maybe, modern translation do attempt to be “different” to avoid copyright infringement but it’s not hard to avoid that. There is no set rule like 10%, etc. Moreover, most translators vocabularies are different enough from others that the translation naturally has enough different that it’s not an infringement.

          It ends up being about money and sales, oh and by the way, how is it if your Greek and Hebrew are so accurate, why the updates, they would have been dead on the first time.
          Certainly, publishing companies care about revenue. That is why they make so many different study bibles. They target many subsectors. But the translation work is usually done by academics, not by publishers. I am personally friends with many of them.

          I don’t know what you mean about why updates… updates to what? To the translation? They are updated for the same reason that you don’t read the 1611 KJV. You read the 1769 KJV just like most KJV readers.

          So, I’ll ask again “why have so many denominations fallen into the hands of the LGBTQIAS2 radicals, if these new translations are so accurate and they are building up the Body of Christ?”
          There are not that many but the ones that have do so because they have a different view on biblical authority or sometimes interpretation of certain passages. Most, however, have done so because they do not believe in biblical inerrancy. It has nothing to do with the translations. No translation says homosexuality is OK. It’s condemned in all modern translations.

          Because it is about money not accuracy and using corrupted texts to deceive so many into falling prey to our adversary!
          Again, publishers don’t do the translating, academics and translation professionals do. Publishers usually only care about style or readability, not content.

          Reply

      • Your kidding self, every modern translation after Wescot & Hort is of the corrupt Alexandrian source text. There is no source text for these modern versions but the ones Vatican approves of which are all three Alexandrian texts. There is no other text source but counterfeit Alexandrian, and the Received Text of which the KJV follows.
        I even have found a KJV with Alexandrain footnotes, and in the maps in back of it is map of the Exodus from Egypt that shows they did not cross Red Sea but went around it into Arabia.

        Reply

  7. WOW, how sad. You all can read your PERVERSION of scripture. I pray The HOLY.GHOST will move on your hearts and remove the shackles from your eyes. There are so many mistakes and omissions in the Nov it is an ABOMINATION. No better than the queen James perversion. Whenever you think man.can do anything, including interpet, better than the HOLY GHOST, you have deceived yourself.

    Reply

    • I am willing to bet you never learned, Greek or Hebrew or bothered to study the body of manuscripts available. Otherwise, you would understand your own folly.

      Reply

      • While I do agree with some of the things you’re saying, don’t you think it’s an offense to God for a homosexual to translate His word? The man knew he was a homosexual and still took the job, that is a problem. If he had stopped living as a homosexual, and repented from the abomination, that would be another matter, but he knowingly deceived everyone. Don’t you think his admission repudiates his character? Is the man still a homosexual, and is he a Christian? It’s one thing if the people who produced the NIV translation did not know, but entirely another story if they did know. There’s forgiveness in the Messiah, but I do think these are important questions to ask.

        Reply

          • Peter, John, Paul and the rest of the apostles are all sinners just like us but repentant sinners that’s why they are saved sinners and God used them for His work. Are the homosexual translators of the NIV repentant as well? Did they forsake their homosexuality and have testimony of salvation, or are they proud being one? That’s the question .

  8. We who believe are not serving God through our own thinking and self-righteousness. We fail when we cast aspersions on other believers who prefer one version of the Bible over all others. We accuse falsely other believers and do not edify them in their faith. Jesus is the Head of the Body of Christ. Vicious attacks on other believers does not edify the Body of Christ nor our own faith, but is like sending cancer in to attack the Body of Christ from within. Satan is more than happy for believers to help destroy the Church.

    Our faith walk is about relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each of us who is born again has Holy Spirit dwelling inside, encouraging us to seek His wisdom and discernment, rather than relying upon our own. Holy Spirit teaches us when we submit to Him and seek understanding of the Word of God and what it has to say about our condition and our faith. We all need to repent daily for our own corrupt words and deeds.

    I am grateful that Holy Spirit has been my mentor and remains in me. Without Him I could do nothing of any value. With Him, I am encouraged, corrected, gain understanding, and get to co-labor with Him. Let us all submit to Holy Spirit’s leading and seek His wisdom rather than tearing down one another. Each of us has a responsibility to seek wisdom and discernment for ourselves concerning the meaning and application of the scriptures. Holy Spirit does not lead us astray no matter which version of the Bible we prefer to read. Only self-righteousness can rob us of understanding. Fortunately, we can repent and stand corrected, then seek the wisdom that we need. We must be diligent in seeking what Holy Spirit wants us to understand. Self-righteousness is futile. It is prideful and not rewarded in heaven.

    One scripture to ponder is James 1:26. See how the various versions interpret it and ask Holy Spirit to clarify the meaning, telling you what He wants you who read this to understand from it.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/James%201:26

    Reply

    • The “Holy Spirit” has led many people to believe complete idiocy concerning Biblical matters. That is why in seminary you learn hard skills like how to read the original languages and gain an understanding of the cultures from primary resources.

      Maybe you should ponder why no seminaries have a problem using the NIV, ESV, etc. Maybe someone with a Ph.D. in Biblical languages knows more than the average lay person.

      Reply

      • What did God say about adding or omitting a single word?
        Yeah, what I thought.
        You luciferians crack me up.
        Always about man being above, or same as God.

        Reply

        • I assume you’re referring to the passage in revelation 22

          ” I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. ”

          “This scroll” refers to the book of Revelation and not the whole Bible. Nevertheless, modern translations are not omitting or changing anything. They are correcting errors made in past compilations just like the KJV did when it was first produced. As new manuscript evidence is discovered, corrections follow.

          It’s not rocket science. Maybe you should spend less time on conspiracy theory websites and more time learning Greek and Hebrew so you can translate the manuscripts yourself….. unless you’re too lazy to study and show yourself approved.

          Reply

          • You might want to read this as well:

            Prov 30:5-6 – Every word of Eloah is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

            In the peace of Yahushua Mashiach, be well.

          • I guess the question is “what are the words of Eloah”? Are these words not decided by mankind?

      • Are you serious? The Holy Spirit led some to Idiocy about the scriptures? Hope you repent on that statement. I cannot believe i have just read that.

        Reply

        • Read between the lines friend. I put “Holy Spirit” in quotes to indicate that many claim it’s the Holy Spirit but we know it’s clearly not. Everyone thinks they are lead by the spirit but many of those people have wildly differing opinions. How can they all be from the spirit? The fact of the matter is that most people just believe what they want and they claim inspiration by the spirit, when in fact it’s just their own production of thoughts.

          Reply
  10. Pingback: his truth

  11. Ridiculous arguments…the “stylistic consultant” that recommended wording had nothing to do with translation…alright. Words. Language. I must be confused what translation is supposed to attend to. The OT Chairman didn’t do anything but “oversee” the translation of the OT. Oh. Just sat there watching. It’s not even worth explaining the corruption in the verses you offer as holding their original meaning and the mere fact that you justify God’s Word not applying to today’s world views as reasonable really let’s the believer know you are completely deceived or deceptive.

    Let’s not forget the corruption goes far beyond homosexuality, not to mention the fact that it’s published by the same people who publish the satanic Bible & all other sorts of witchcraft texts.

    Does the NIV indicate what punishment is promised to those who lead His people astray? Be on guard, be discerning, ask our Heavenly Father for wisdom. Praise God, ever faithful.

    Reply

    • I realize that most people don’t understand the translation process, so allow me to assist. Style consultants are not hired to change the meaning of words. They are paid to help the translators arrive on phrasing that is meaningful to non-scholars. For example, the 1995 NASB is a great translation but is sometimes hard to read because it uses phrases that are technically correct but not well known among the average reader. They did not make style or readability a priority. They consulted 9 different critical specialists on not one style consultant (in the latest 2020 version).

      What does a style consultant do? They tell you to use words like “age” rather than “eon”…. or how to use commas properly for readability. The comma issue is more important than you might realize since most manuscripts contained no punctuation. They DO NOT alter the meaning of words. That is what translators are for.

      What does the committee chair do on a translation team? They act as a manager, assigning tasks, answering questions, reviewing translations, etc. They are not, however, assigned books to translate usually.

      Nevertheless, this article is about whether or not the NIV was corrupted by these people and unfortunately you failed to list a single verse that was “corrupted” by their individual. All the passages concerning homosexuality read nearly identical to other contemporary translations. None have been altered to appear pro-homosexuality.

      Reply

      • “Critical specialist”? Mere persuasive language in defending the defenseless. Homosexuals and lesbian involvement in translating “bibles” is a mere distraction- an instrument of the devil. The undeniable truth is, Satan’s fingerprints are all over translated “bibles” and his influence consumes those who read these devil inspired works of spiritual pornography. There is no excuse; none; for the NIV and other demonic books, removing Matthew 17:21, cutting Romans 8:1 in half, removing “through His blood” in Colossians 1:14, and removing the nature of God in 1 John 5:7. In each example, the devil’s influence rages like fire. The NIV and all other translated bible are corrupt, influenced by Satan, and point to a religious god that does not exist. Since when does God need man to review His writings and rearrange His words to be more easily understood. One who does not understand Scripture as it was written, will never understand it no matter how many specialists swim in circles attempting to change Scripture into a child’s fairy tale. Specialist, by whose authority and definition; your own

        Reply

        • The only undeniable truth is that the only people who hate the NIV are KJVO types that have no actual education in the original languages or Biblical criticism. Learn Greek and Hebrew and then have an adult discussion about the passages you claim are “corrupted”.

          Reply

          • arrogancy in progress. if there have been any other manuscripts found after the dead sea scrolls, I haven’t heard about them, which doesn’t mean a whole lot. But, if all of these translations are derived from reading the dead sea scrolls, then there should be, through pure logic, only one translation. Otherwise, if there are others somebody didn’t translate correctly.
            The excuse of making it more readable is a copout. a readable translation should last for many years, if they were making it more readable for the masses, then one of us should have been right alongside of the translators to tell them if it was properly readable or not. having over educated narcissists, especially the person answering for the ADMIN, be the determining factor should not be so.
            all we would need to make a new translation readable would be for some of us deplorables have just someone that knows Greek and Hebrew, or better yet, Armenian, and we could translate the bible. I’m joking a bit here and maybe a little sarcastic, but not any more than the elite super-educated ones.

          • arrogancy in progress.
            Arrogance is having no ability to translate an ancient language and then telling those who can that they are wrong.

            if there have been any other manuscripts found after the dead sea scrolls, I haven’t heard about them, which doesn’t mean a whole lot.
            Not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.

            But, if all of these translations are derived from reading the dead sea scrolls, then there should be, through pure logic, only one translation. Otherwise, if there are others somebody didn’t translate correctly.
            No modern translation is based only on a single source of manuscripts. They are based on a critical apparatus that takes into account all available manuscripts, early church quotes, early church religious liturgical texts, and early translations into other languages like Coptic, Syriac, etc.

            The excuse of making it more readable is a copout.
            Nobody speaks Middle English anymore. The KJV translators agreed that the biblical texts should be continually updated so that it was readable in the common vernacular. I recommend reading the prolog in the 1611 KJV Bible which contains the translators comments what they did and why they did it.

            a readable translation should last for many years, if they were making it more readable for the masses, then one of us should have been right alongside of the translators to tell them if it was properly readable or not.
            Many, yes….. 400+, no. And translation committees do employ or contract consultants that provide feedback on readability and writing style.

            having over educated narcissists, especially the person answering for the ADMIN, be the determining factor should not be so.
            Actually learning the biblical languages and participating the translation process is considered over-educated? I think most people would call it a pre-requisite. There is a reason why we require surgeons to have an education before we let them cut us open. It’s a specialized job…. as is the process of textual criticism.

            all we would need to make a new translation readable would be for some of us deplorables have just someone that knows Greek and Hebrew, or better yet, Armenian, and we could translate the bible.
            If the sole purpose of creating a new translation was to make it more readable, then of course anyone could just read a Bible and change a few words that need updated…. but that is not the purpose of modern translations.

            I’m joking a bit here and maybe a little sarcastic, but not any more than the elite super-educated ones.
            Sarcasm is always appreciated on this site.

  12. You made me dislike the NIV version even more. You aren’t discrediting the facts stacked against it, you’re simply stating that they “aren’t that bad”. You have made the choice to overlook them, and that’s fine! But you can’t ask the internet to join you in overlooking things that, for me, could have been here say, but you proved are actually true. These people were, in fact, who they are rumored to be (or at least, in my circles). I am disappointed and squirming at the fact that you cannot at least give these discrepancies any validity, rather than time and again stating your opinion that they are not a big deal.

    Reply

    • I don’t think you understood the material very well so I will highlight a few things.
      1. The primary claim is that there was 1 or more homosexual translators that corrupted the NIV translation.
      That claim is false on two accounts. First, the 2 homosexuals involved were not translators. Virginia was a style consultant and was in no way translating texts. Dr. Woudstra was also not translating the texts. He was overseeing the people in charge of the Hebrew scriptures but was not personally involved.

      The second problem with this claim is that these people corrupted the translations. None of the passages that speak of homosexuality were altered. From Leviticus to Paul, all the texts concerning homosexuality still condemns it. So, clearly the text was not corrupted.

      The NIV was a translation by Committee, not by a single LGBQ dictator. Furthermore, the NIV was updated a decade ago now (2011). The translation committee is listed here. https://www.biblica.com/niv-bible/niv-bible-translators/
      None of them were homosexual and I think you’ll find that they agree with the previous 1984 translators on passages associated with homosexuality because they were never corrupted.

      Reply

  13. Thanks for your clarification about the NIV. However, while R. Laird Harris was a revered teacher of mine at Covenant, and I used the NIV for a while, I moved on to the KJV and ASV when I read English, and the Chinese Union when I read Chinese (I do some with the ESV and Chinses New Version, because I have them in a bilingual edition).
    This being said, my beloved KJV (I believe the Majority Text deserves more respect than it gets) was translated the team that missed the boat on Presbyterian church order…

    Reply

  14. It is really simple to settle. Jesus said “My sheep hear my voice and a stranger they will not follow. Rather they will flee from him”.

    Even before I obeyed God’s Bible Plan of Salvation = Acts 2:38 I knew something was spiritually wrong with all translations except the “Authorized Version”. Curious qualification place on the KJV by the King James. Now I am a professional mathematician with an NSf Postdoc to boot. I am also quite familiar with both Logic as it is practiced in philosophy departments and mathematical logic. The NIV is demonstrably corrupt. As a “formal system” it is demonstrably inconsistent and incomplete. No such defects do I find in the KJV. Apart from the fact that almost all NT Scriptures on prayer&fasting were removed or mutilated!

    Now Jesus said “This kind cometh out only by prayer and fasting”. Well it is no wonder that Ted Haggard and other abusers of themselves with mankind could not cast their own demons out using the NIV.

    You will find out on that soon to come Judgement Day what seed you are of.

    HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YOU BELIEVED? Acts 19

    If not your salvation is all in your head!

    Reply

    • Congratulations on your degrees in math. However, math isn’t the same as Biblical studies or linguistic studies. Learn Greek, Hebrew, and read some of the modern volumes on textual criticism and then you might be qualified to have a discussion about appropriate translations.

      “I am also quite familiar with both Logic as it is practiced in philosophy departments and mathematical logic.”
      So what…….I’m an electrical engineer with a degree in robotics…..doesn’t qualify me yet to understand the details of biblical translations. You still have to know the languages to have an informed opinion.

      “The NIV is demonstrably corrupt. As a “formal system” it is demonstrably inconsistent and incomplete. ”
      Funny how you presented no evidence of your claim even though it “demonstrable”. Also, the NIV isn’t a formal system so it’s a bit silly to compare it to one. You don’t need calculus to translate one text to another language or to do textual criticism.

      “No such defects do I find in the KJV. ”
      I actually have a whole series dedicated to translation mistakes in the KJV. It’s not even unique. A dozen or so scholars have published readily available materials on these matters. You can read my entries at the following. http://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/category/king-james-bible-kjv/kjv-translation-errors/

      “Apart from the fact that almost all NT Scriptures on prayer&fasting were removed or mutilated!”
      I assume you never actually bothered to do a word search but for the record “fasting” is mentioned in the following verses in the NIV:
      Matthew 4:2
      Matthew 6:16, 18
      Matthew 9:14

      In the KJV the the word “fasting” shows up a few more times (11 total times) because the translators translated 2 different Greek words into the English word “fasting”. The verb νηστεύω means to fast but it’s derived from the adjective νῆστις which means hungry…which is why the NIV sometimes uses the word hungry instead of fasting. The KJV translators were either re-interpreting the verses or they just made a translation mistake. The adjective for being hungry is not the same as a verb indicating fasting. You can’t say someone was hungering in English. It’s not an idiomatic expression in English like it was in other languages. That is why we say fasting. However, the adjective to describe hunger translates just fine because it’s a state of being, not an idiom for fasting.

      The word pray/prayer shows up 165 times in the NT of the NIV… which astonishingly is the same number as the KJV.

      You would do yourself many favors if you would try to provide better examples that were not rooted in conspiracy theory talking points and a lack of study.

      Reply

      • Theology is man telling God what His Word means. The Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth which the world neither knoweth nor receiveth is God telling man what His Word means. (Gospel of John)

        The Bible and the Apostles cared nothing for theology or philosophy, neither did they create confusion and subversion by striving about the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words. (2Timothy 2:14)

        Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2;8

        All the things that you highly exalt are of the world and not of God.

        HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YOU BELIEVED?

        Just as I thought. Your belief is intellectual, in your head and Vain.

        For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. 1 Thessalonians 1;5

        THAT IS MY GOSPEL. You can give your intellectual reasonings to God on Judgement Day. We will see what he thinks.

        Reply

        • You have one sorry excuse for despising education.

          “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a worker who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

          What do you actually think happens at Bible college and Seminary? You think we sit around reading philosophy and not the Bible? The entire Bible is theology. Theology is the study of God. (Greek: theos-logia = theology in English. The study of God)

          I think the word you’re looking for is hermeneutics which is from the Greek: hermēneuō, meaning to interpret.

          But I’m sure you already knew that.

          Reply

          • The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. Proverbs 12:15

            A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him? Ecclesiastes 10:14

          • Nothing is more foolish than someone with no expertise in a field of study correcting someone with expertise in that field. Do you correct the doctor and your mechanic too?

          • I’m a simple person and I don’t come close to having the degrees that you all have. So please excuse my poor writing skills. I love God and my desire and objectives is to know God word to the best of my ability with the help of the holy spirit. I know that the bible says he who started a good work in me, will fIrish on to the end. Because of this truth I understand that God expects me to search and learn all I can about Him ,his plan of salvation and end time prophecy, that is why I believe that I have to start with his word which is found in the bible. The ? than is which is the best bible translation can I rely on to help me with my studies. In my search through the Web is how I came to this page or site. I read many of the discussions between may of you, which helps me to see and understood how important it is to read the best bible available. I have a question that all of you could give me an answer to.
            King James Bible
            All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousnes. The scriptures that is to be used to achieve this goal is the old and new testemant. Now we all know that God makes no errors in what ever he does or have someone do. Because he is righteous yet understanding of us and the fact that we are flawed , he can understand our limitations, yet he does expects us to do our best from a sincere heart . Knowing this helps us to know and make a wise decision in the reading or tranotation of the scriptures. II believe that just like God chose Moses , prophets and the apostles , to write the scriptures as they were lead by the spirit of God. We have had many translators who translated the bible. Wouldn’t rather have everyone who is involved in any translation to be devoted to God before taking on such a task or would they be found by God to be unqualified for the job if they are purposelyou living a life that is completely contrary to the word of God. God knows we are not perfect but if we claim to be saved and know that the scriptures are holy ,why would we want to translate God’s word knowing we are living in complete rebellion of his word. I would feel shameful knowing that I’m taking such a holy task and I can’t dedicated my life to him. Which leads me to this answere. If someone is having some serious sinful issues happening in there life .
            1 corinthians 6:18 flee from serial immorality. Every single a person commits is outside the body, but the serially immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the holy spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own so glorify God in your body.
            Leviticus 18:22 you shall not lie with a male as with a woman ;it is an abomination.
            The fact that they let anyone who is struggling with sins that are an abomination and need deliverance from such sins show that not one of them was qualified to translate or aid in the translation of the bible. If no one knew than the person who help in any shape or form was not qualified in aiding on the translation of the niv or any other bible. …What they needed to do is get their life right with God first , which according to what I have read they didn’t. They showed to be untrustworthy.

          • Iraida, I appreciate your response but let me ask you a question. If these 2 “sinful” people were able to corrupt the text….can you point to any verse that was corrupted? What exactly was corrupted? And if it’s corrupt, why does the NIV match other modern translations? How could they corrupt translations that they did not participate in?

          • Your book is a private interpretation,a counterfeit, it’s a satanic book of doctrines of demons,it will guarantee that you will spend eternity in the place made for satan and his fallen angels.It’s all lies,there is no eternal life in it.That niv book has been compiled by godless religious men and women that hated the real Jesus of the real Bible,prove me wrong with your corrupt ,deceitful ,useless evil indoctrination disguised as education ,that you have poisoned your brains with,

  15. To admin,

    I must simply say this:

    The fact that too many fallacies line up in the Swiss Cheese chart in regards to the NIV that unlock everyone’s view so that we can see that the NIV is evil… & all other modern versions of the Bible, as well, show that your support of the NIV is just plain wrong. You can take away which ever manuscript any Bible has come from & still see that the NIV is tainted just because they have homosexuals that had their grubby paws involved in it. You can take that away & look at who owns the printing press that the NIV came off of & see what other books they print on the same press & see that the NIV is still tainted. The point remains, 1Thes. 5:22, “Abstain From All Appearances of Evil” & yet here admin is supporting it. You can look at the same things & know that because all these devil… evil people have had their hand in the NIV & look at Haggai 2:12-14 & know that it came off of a dirty printing press & therefore, the NIV is dirty as well.

    Even if you could still clean all that up, how do you explain all the references of the sodomites being removed from the NIV with temple prostitutes being substituted in those places? I’m sorry. You can use all the technical terms of lectionaries, papyrus, uncials, minuscules, etc., but the very fact remains, the NIV gives off such a stink, that even a new student just starting to doing research that looked a little bit up the river into the writing of the NIV would sense the bloated corpses that the water is rushing through that polluted everything down the whole stream. What happens to the churches that preach to their congregations using this horrible Bible? Is it any wonder that we’re where we’re at in this country today, because the deceived are now deceiving the masses? While I can’t possibly lay it all at the feet of the NIV, I must say that it is just one little bit that adds up to all the problems we have today. As far as aim concerned, “admin” is just another chink in that chain that is waving the rest of humanity through the Gates of Hell.

    In the end, admin, I would suggest that you “dust off your AKJV Holy Bible” & try reading it to see the fingerprint of God/Jesus Christ that aided in the writing of the Authorized King James Version. You might learn something. I will not be returning to this site, but you have my e-mail, if you have a little Godly rebuke, but I don’t think you’re capable of it. 1Tim. 5:20.

    Tony Beardmore
    Wichita, Ks.

    Reply

    • Sigh…. just a never ending string of talking points. Translations are not like a tub of water that can simply be tainted. It’s not like the translation of one passage ruins the whole product. Moreover, I already listed the passages about homosexuality and showed that not one of them was altered to appear favorably towards homosexuality. They all condemn it. And dirty printing presses? Oh give me a break. That’s just silly.

      About your complaint on Deuteronomy 23:17-18 not reading the way you like, it’s fairly obvious that the verse is referring to cult prostitution. The Hebrew texts used in both the KJV and modern translations use the word(s) קדשׁה/קדשׁ which is literally translated to mean something consecrated, holy, or set apart. Deuteronomy uses this word to refer to temple prostitution was a common idiomatic expression in the Ancient Near East. A boy or girl at the temple that was set aside for temple use and receives the price of a harlot is clearly a temple prostitute. It’s the KJV that inserts the word sodomite for the male temple prostitute.

      The fact that you never bothered to read a commentary on this passage or even lookup some of the words in a KJV Strong’s Concordance should make you ashamed of yourself. Going around lecturing people on topics you know nothing about yet claiming to have superior knowledge…..it’s embarrassing. You can talk about stenches and things you dislike about the NIV all you want is still doesn’t change the fact that you’ve not offered up a single shred of actual evidence to refute the fact that the NIV is a perfectly fine translation.

      You don’t see the fingerprint of God, you just have an active imagination. I won’t be emailing you. I know you think you’re “doing the right thing” by “rebuking” me but you’re just showing how little to understand. When you’ve actually studied and shown yourself approved you can come back and we can have and adult conversation the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words rather than you making wild unfounded accusations.

      Reply

  16. I like what you said, & I also look at who owns the NIV publishing company along with other books that they print on those same presses, such as, The Joys of Gay Sex & the Satanic Bible (Hag. 2:12-14 & 1Thes. 5:22), but my main question is, What’s wrong with the KJV? I can’t imagine a better printed Bible in all the English-speaking world. Is there anything betting in the English language?

    Reply

    • I actually don’t mind the KJV. It’s the people who believe it’s the only true English Bible that drive me crazy. They make up wild conspiracies about other translations and make claims about translation accuracy having no knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, or how the translation process works.

      Reply

  17. Interesting. But the deep question is, were the translators men of the spirit, or only men of religious flesh? Would men of the spirit even engage homos and lesbians in translating the word of God? The answer is no, they wouldn’t. Can we imagine, with all that’s said about homo throughout the word of God, Paul or John giving their letters to a homo to edit? Absolutely not!! Or Jesus asking Mollincot to help prepare his parables? No, no, no. Not only that, they would not engage with anyone of the flesh in these works, for such people are thetargets of the great message — be converted and saved by the spirit. By your fruits you shall know them?
    The bad Greek texts, the OT books in the wrong order (as in KJV also), the wild paraphrasing as if the original style isn’t good enough, the multitude of blunders and alterations(as in the KJV) … all evidence of men of the flesh. /calling oneself “a conservative evangelical” is not good enough. It’s not a biblical term. You have to be born of the spirit of Jesus, after which you would have no dealings with men of the flesh concerning the word of God.
    P.S. Nor am I a fan of the KJV. I believe in only accurate translating. These versions fail the tests a thousand times.

    Reply

    • It is interesting that whenever proven wrong on something KJVO guys always go down the road of attacking someone’s character. I believe Socrates said it best: “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

      To the point, however, if you bothered to read the whole thing or look into the matter, the only homosexual involved in the actual translation work did not “come out” until long after the NIV was already translated and the texts being translated under his review fully condemn homosexuality. So, it’s not like he was affecting anything and his co-workers were unaware he was gay. So, it’s a bit far fetched to assume that the rest of the translation committee were men of the “flesh” because they unknowingly worked with a guy who was gay.

      On the matter of the Greek texts and other translations, I’ll just assume you know nothing of textual criticism nor the original languages. The Greek text used for the NT wasn’t even complete, much less superior. Portions were backwards translated into Greek from the Latin manuscripts. Moreover, the majority of the manuscripts used in the TR were rather late in date and differed in many places with early texts in Latin, Greek, Coptic, and Syriac, not to mention the quotations of the early church writings.

      Reply

  18. My comment here is in reply to Admin’s comments tot Michael Floyd. It seems it has submitted it as a new comment on its own for some reason.

    Reply

  19. Your point #1 in that they are closest to the original is a presupposition that oldest is more accurate, a basis backed up by “early church fathers” which is not much different to Catholic dogma I keep seeing over and over in any manuscript debate. That catholic-church-defined traditions supersede scripture, that purely because they quoted them equates to proof that they are “closest” to the originals ?
    Referencing lectionaries and devotions as a point of verification is still presupposing that the manuscripts were accurate from the start. Comparing the overlapping consistency seen with Byzantine manuscripts used in the KJV process; not as old but much greater in number.

    In a court of law, which would stand a batter chance?
    Smaller data pool, supposedly higher quality evidence on moot claim that older is more reliable?
    or
    Significantly greater data pool, not as old and therefore further away from the originals, yet still maintain consistency?

    Point #2 dismisses the fact that two unbelievers were relied upon. To use an extreme example for contrast, it would be like using Richard Dawkins and expecting there to be no bias. Or another example, imagine an entire team consisting of highly respected and educated men and women in these fields, all of them muslims, atheists and hard-left political activists. We end up with gross intellectual dishonesty in thinking that despite their experience and qualifications, there would be no bias or well-meaning (from their beliefs) to influence the end result even if only tied to a position of textual criticism.

    Yes, Erasmus laid the foundation; a devout catholic that subscribed to the magical cannibal biscuit of transubstantiation. Having said this, Erasmus was still blamed by Catholics at the time for being an instigator for many protestant uprisings at the time. HIs ecumenical view gives some insight to his mindset since by any true catholic definition, ecumenical would be blasphemy to the church. I do not think it is fair to draw Erasmus off purely because he was in fact a catholic.
    He was one man but the translation committee of that authorised version is where that tapestry was continued by 47 highly qualified people.
    Compare their backgrounds and beliefs to those examples above – which would be more trustworthy as a person eager to understand what God actually said?

    Reply

    • Sometimes the way my server caches causes the post to not show up in the right order. I am working on this issue. I did discover a workaround, although I don’t know why it works yet. If you delete your reply and do it a second time, it will add it to the right location.

      Nevertheless, I will address your points now.

      #1 – I am not sure why you have a problem with the church fathers and the manuscripts that they quoted from. You do understand that everything we have today comes from the early church, right? There isn’t a group of non-Christians from the first three centuries that were hoarding Byzantine manuscripts. Preferring the texts used by the early church has nothing to do with the Catholic view on Scripture VS Tradition.

      On the matter of data quality… there isn’t a court in the land that would prefer a large data pool that is 1000 years after the fact verses a small data pool that is between 50-300 years after the fact. This is because everyone is well aware of how data is corrupted over time and that data pools were usually more difficult to build in ancient times due to a lack of technology. The ONLY reason why we have a larger data pool of Byzantine manuscripts is because of advances in technology where those manuscripts thrived. Let’s not also forget that some of the largest non-Byzantine libraries in the world (which had manuscripts in them) were burned to the ground, such as the ones in Alexandria, Caesarea, and Jerusalem. There is more nuance to why the Byzantine manuscript tradition survive than you apparently want to understand.

      On the consistency of the later manuscripts, why is that a selling point? They had a drastically different culture where more people could read and write. Why wouldn’t there be more manuscripts? But that doesn’t make them better. They had better technology and better literacy as a population. We have that today you know. We have hundreds and thousands of copies of the SBL NT critical text. Does that mean they are more trustworthy than the ancient Byzantine NT texts? By your logic, they would be the best copies since they agree more and we have more copies.

      Last thing on the reliability conversation. You are confusing reliability with authenticity. NT Greek critics are looking to figure out which texts are closes to the original, not which text was transmitted most reliably. Two very different things.

      #2 – Wescott and Hort were not “unbelievers”. If you spent any amount of time studying you would have figured out that they also wrote commentaries and that they were in ministry all their lives. Wescott was the Bishop in Durham until he died and Hort was an Anglican Priest. The only reason why you think they were unbelievers is because you have been deceived by KJVO people trying to convince you they were not.

      Moreover, modern translations are “based” on the Wescott-Hort texts. They are used for reference only at this point. The Nestle-Aland text is usually the starting point for the NT Greek in most modern Bibles.

      #3 – The last point you made about Erasmus and the KJV translators is just silly. You’re confusing translations with critical apparatuses. Erasmus was not a Bible translator, even though he had the ability to do so. He was a critical scholar who formed the Greek NT manuscripts into a usable apparatus. The translators of the KJV were certainly learned men but they were only updating the Bishop’s Bible using the Erasmusian apparatus. They did not create their own set of manuscripts and they did not translate the entire Bible, or even NT for that matter. If you bothered to read the introduction to the 1611 KJV you would see that their instructions were to update the Bishops’ Bible. On top of that, they didn’t even have a complete set of Greek manuscripts to work from. Erasmus had to backwards translate Latin manuscripts into Greek to complete some of the books of the NT.

      Reply

      • I read the translator’s notes to any Bible I study from. You can glean quite a bit of useful information about the translation you’re reading by taking a few minutes to read the introduction or the notes. While I value the KJV, it remains a translation. Is it different from others? Most certainly, the history alone sets it in a place of high esteem. Having said that, I find other translations helpful and valuable. I don’t think it profits a man to shut his eyes and plug up his ears, especially when it concerns the Word of the Living Elohim.

        One thing I know to be true, it doesn’t feel like the body of the Messiah is adhering to John 13:35…

        By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. [KJV]…

        Or…

        This is how everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. [ISV]

        Both translations convey the proper meaning, both in spirit and in truth. After all, the original scrolls and codices (I wish we had them) were written in languages most of us do not speak (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, etc.). What do you think the Messiah would think of all of us I wonder? I think both sides have valid points, but the final word has to come from the Scriptures. It’s not an easy task, submitting oneself to the set-apart Spirit, to set ones self apart from the world, whether it be in the form of a church in apostasy or from intellectual delusion. We’re very close to the time of antichrist, we should all get our spiritual houses in order, love one another like our Savior commanded, and start walking just as He walked.

        Shalom, peace, and blessings.

        Reply

        • I do agree with the notion that a translation is still a translation. That is why we learn Greek and Hebrew in a good seminary. Reading the OT in Hebrew is incredibly eye opening. You’ll find all kinds of things that you simply cannot translate into English. You’ll also discover that English translations don’t always know how to translate things because some Hebrew words are just incredibly rare and only show up in the Bible or are borrowed from another language and has an unknown origin.

          Nevertheless, we have a dozen great English translations to pick from. Christians that spew hate over other Christians for not reading their personal and preferred translation tells me that they are not as much interested in the scriptures as much as they are in feeling superior to others, despite having no Biblical training.

          Reply

      • #2 – Wescott and Hort were not “unbelievers”. If you spent any amount of time studying you would have figured out that they also wrote commentaries and that they were in ministry all their lives. Wescott was the Bishop in Durham until he died and Hort was an Anglican Priest. The only reason why you think they were unbelievers is because you have been deceived by KJVO people trying to convince you they were not.

        This is the most common alibi of people trying to defend Westcott and Hort. Have you read their diaries and letters? See for yourself. Tell me if any true believer of the Lord Jesus Christ will share their views.

        1. Westcott’s Views:

        He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 4,
        1890, the following:

        “No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal
        history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did.”

        2. Hort’s View:

        …Agreed with Charles Darwin’s false evolutionary theory. On April 3, 1860, he wrote:
        “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book
        that one is proud to be contemporary with…My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.”

        3. Hort’s View:

        He denied a literal Eden and a real fall of man.
        “I am inclined to think that no such state as “Eden” (I mean the popular notion) ever existed and
        that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly
        agrees.”

        4. Hort writing to Westcott calls atonement “immoral.”

        “I entirely agree–correcting one word–with what you there say on the atonement, having for
        many years believed that “the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ
        Himself” is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and
        material counterfeit…Certainly, nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of
        Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death: but indeed, that is only one aspect of an
        almost universal heresy.”

        5. Westcott believes that visions of the Virgin are merely God changing form. In a letter to a cohort
        from his séance club he writes:

        “As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette (France) was that of God revealing Himself now,
        not in one form, but in many.”
        Note: (Our Lady of La Salette (French: Notre-Dame de La Salette) is a Marian
        apparition reported by two children, Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat to have occurred at La
        Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846.)

        Reply

  20. God will never bring his word from Egypt or Rome . Satan has a strong hold on those cities, no Blood was shed for the New English version.and KJV came from Antioch and Jerusalem . Its not copyrighted like the New English version ,

    Reply

    • Virtually everything you just said is wrong. The Greek old testament that’s used by Paul and virtually every gentile church was translated in Alexandria, Egypt. The Bible for the first 1500 years was Latin and came from Rome. No blood was shed over the KJV as it was directed and sanctioned by the king and it’s underlying manuscripts were collated by a Catholic priest named Erasmus.

      Lastly, the copyright system as we know it today didn’t exist in 1611. However we know that only selected printers were allowed to print it and they were compensated for the work.

      Reply

  21. Isn’t it true that the Alexandra manuscripts come down on the wrong side of the argument in Timothy. And that Westcott and Horts in rewriting the Greek that translators use now to write bibles, can’t be considered older manuscripts. Plus Wescott and Hort can’t even be considered believers. It’s like letting unbelievers write the most important book in the world. Don’t think that’s smart. I’m not saying the kjv is perfect, but 40 Christian scholars divided up and separated and then taking what is agreed on by all, is way more accurate that a bunch of non believers with the less is. Just my thoughts

    Reply

    • Michael, thanks for your comment. I will try to address your various comments in an orderly manner below.

      1. The Alexandrian text types are the closest to the original (along with the Western) that are available. Scholars that create the critical apparatus for the old and new testaments use many other manuscripts also. They do not simply just assume that the oldest are the best. In many cases the older manuscripts are preferred because they were supported well by the early church fathers, who quoted the Bible veraciously. They also consult ancient lectionaries, devotionals, and even household items that are found which, not infrequently, have inscriptions on them.

      Thus, to merely states that the Alexandrian texts are somehow deficient (which they are not) is missing the forrest through the trees.

      2. Wescott and Hort were neither atheists nor attempting to change the Greek text. In fact, their major contributions to the field of textual criticism are less about the critical editions they made and more about the methods of textual criticism. It’s the methods that they employed with brought them respect. Their critical editions are not the basis for all modern translations, however, their work is referenced frequently even today. But even modern translators believe that they relied on Vaticanus and

      The urgency to defame and slander WH is just a distraction from their work and scholarship. Wescott was an ordained and practicing Bishop most of his adult life and Hort was a seminary professor for a long duration.

      3. The KJV translation method that you are referring to is not fully accurate but it’s also comparing apples to oranges. Wescott and Hort were not translators… thought they could do that if they wished. They were interested in the manuscripts not the translation. The KJV committees were translators not textual critics. They used a critical apparatus to translate from…. one very similar to the one that Wescott and Hort made.

      To be clear, making a critical edition of the manuscripts and translating a critical edition into English, are two very different jobs. The translation by committee process is still used today in many of today’s Bibles.

      My own thoughts ……..
      Defending the KJV falls into two categories. 1. The manuscripts and 2. The translation of those manuscripts. On both of these issues, the KJV cannot claim superiority. The manuscripts used by the original 1611 translators were just a few that were published by Erasmus, a catholic priest. Some passages were missing from the Greek and so it was not even a complete set of Greek NT manuscripts. Portions were translated from Latin back to Greek. Manuscripts aside, it’s fairly easy to open the KJV and mistakes in it. Most KJV advocates are alarmed to find out that the KJV has errors but it does.

      To be fair though, some of those mistakes came from the Bishop’s Bible. This is because the KJV was initiated to be an update of the Bishop’s Bible. In fact, they were given strict orders NOT to change the text of the Bishop’s Bible unless absolutely needed. 92% of the KJV can be found identically copied from the Tyndale or Bishop’s Bible.

      Reply

  22. The greek and hebrew manuscripts are the standard, but the manuscripts used by the king james are superior because they are the preserved manuscripts that were consistently passed down. The NIV deleted verses based on alexandrian egyptian manuscripts that weren’t discovered until the 1800s. God said he would preserve his word. He would not let the true version of his word be lost until the 1800s. Just because a manuscript is older, doesn’t mean it’s more authoratative. People(and satan) were corrupting God’s word back then, just like some people are corrupting God’s word today. God let the Alexandrian manuscripts be lost for a reason. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

    Reply

    • Sam, thanks for commenting. However, I cannot agree with your theories.

      The KJV manuscripts were not superior. In fact, they are not even complete. The TR was partially back-translated from Latin. Nevertheless, what leads you to believe that the KJV manuscripts were better? Are you just repeating things you were told?

      The NIV did not delete passages solely on the basis of the Alexandrian texts. To understand the many manuscripts that are used to create modern translations, I would suggest picking up a UBS Bible which has the manuscripts listed for all the variant readings. I would also grab the commentary on the UBS Greek texts, by Bruce Metzger.

      Your theory of preservation is yet another example where the KJV fails. The Hebrew text does not say he will preserve his word. It says he will preserve the needy. It’s hard to see in English because the thing that God is preserving is “them”. But who is “them”? Any Hebrew reader can see that “them” is not referring to God’s words. That being said, I do believe God preserved enough for the purpose it serves.

      His words were not “lost” until the 1800’s. The Bible was available in many languages, even in the 2nd century. Those ancient translations also tend to agree with the manuscripts that are used for the new translations. Furthermore, English Bibles were in existence 100 years before the KJV.

      I agree that older is not equal to better. Neither to modern scholars and critics. They are just one of the tools in the toolbox for textual reconstruction.

      The Alexandrian manuscripts were not lost, BTW. They are known and used, just not in the western world. Erasmus actually had someone consult the Vaticanus when creating his Greek edition of the NT.

      Reply

    • I think you’re placing that in the form of a question. The answer is no but technically all Bible translations are “similar”. It’s the differences that matter.

      Reply

  26. Thank you for the clarifying about that matter, however I’d like to know as well your stand on the issue regarding the deleted verses in the NIV Bible.

    Reply

    • My first question is why you think the NIV deleted verses from the Bible? I think what you mean is deleted from the KJV. Which makes me ask the question….. Aren’t you worried about the verses ADDED to the Bible by the KJV?

      I only bring this up because you are starting with the notion that the KJV is the standard but it’s not. The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are the standard.

      Reply

          • The best Greek text is that compiled by Pierpoint and Robinson 2005. They spent 27 years doing this. They show conclusively that the superior Greek text are those of Byzantian origin, not Alexandrian. Some scholars are saying of the Sinaiticus text that it was a fraud, Tea-stained to appear antiquated. Whether that is true I do not know, but several are saying it and I’m not surprised. The whole story seem like a fraud from the beginning.What I do know for certain is that the Byzantian Majority texts contain, between them, the whole word of God. Whereas the Alexandrian texts, and that compiled by the renegades Wescott and Hort, differ from each other, differ from the Majority, are called “depraved” in places by John Burgon, and are much depleted. Doctor Graham Thomason on his website Far Above All.com has produced a masterly booklet on the subject (to which I introduced him, but he now excels).

            I am not a supporter of the KJV. For a start, it, like the NIV, as the Old Testament books in the wrong order. That is before we consider syntax, meaning, doctrine, and style. And the nature of the translators (KJV translators had persecutors of Christians among them). I believe that both the KJV and the NIV are extremely poor translations.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.